Short procedure – Ministry of Justice examines procedure
The Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) has sent an information report on the planned procedure for the investigation into the alleged false testimony of Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. In response to an APA request, a spokeswoman leaves open whether the ministry considers the questioning by a judge requested by Kurz to be appropriate: “In the specific case, this examination has not yet been completed.” Vienna. The WKStA investigates after a complaint against Kurz because of the suspicion of having incorrectly informed the Ibiza investigative committee on several points. In essence, it is about the question of how intensively Kurz under Turquoise-Blue was involved in the reform of the ÖBAG state holding company. During his questioning in the committee, the Chancellor tried to downplay his role in the selection of the supervisory board as well as in the appointment of the controversial former ÖBAG boss Thomas Schmid. Chat logs that emerged later, however, suggest close coordination between Schmid and Kurz.
Both Kurz himself and the ÖVP have repeatedly attacked the WKStA in the past and accused it of acting politically. Justice Minister Alma Zadic (Greens), on the other hand, stood behind the investigators, the public prosecutor itself complained about political interference against their investigations. ÖVP lawyer Werner Suppan demanded on Tuesday that the Federal Chancellor should not be questioned by the public prosecutor, but by a judge. Suppan cited the reason that “it is about a special case and a special personality”.
In fact, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 101, Paragraph 2) provides that the public prosecutor’s office applies for evidence to be taken through judicial evidence, “if there is a particular public interest in such evidence because of the importance of the criminal offense to be investigated and the person of the suspect”. However, both conditions must have been met for this. A prominent accused is therefore not sufficient, the significance of the crime to be investigated (in this case a false statement) must also be taken into account.
“In practice, this regulation has so far been of very little importance, especially when it comes to conducting interrogations,” says the Ministry of Justice. In some cases an expert was appointed by the court. It is also pointed out that there is no longer any room for judicial taking of evidence if the matter has already been clarified. According to the ministry, there is already an information report from the public prosecutor’s office on the planned procedure. However, this is still being checked.
